Far Right Wing Violence Has Skyrocketed Since Obama Elected

[jtpr312]

Not that it's to anyone's surprise, but since Obama became the nominee for president, radical right wing violence has soared.

"A report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Military Academy on Jan. 15 discusses the potential dangers of “violent far-right” organizations, which has angered some conservatives that believe the military should focus on international threats.

The executive summary of the paper, “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” claims that “since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self- identify with the far-right of American politics.”

Written by Arie Perliger, Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, the paper asserts that three distinct ideologies exist in the “American violent far right.” Those are “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement,” the last of which “includes mainly Christian Identity groins such as the Aryan Nations.”

“Findings indicate that…it is not only feelings of deprivation that motivate those involved in far right violence, but also the sense of empowerment that emerges when the political system is perceived to be increasingly permissive to far right ideas,” it later reads.

The rise in attacks in the 21st century were significant, as “Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%.”

West Point study on ?violent far right? shows ?dramatic rise? in attacks | The Raw Story

Read the actual report, it's bs without any corroborating evidence to support it's "findings".

 

[Samson]

Not that it's to anyone's surprise, but since Obama became the nominee for president, radical right wing violence has soared.

"A report published by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point Military Academy on Jan. 15 discusses the potential dangers of “violent far-right” organizations, which has angered some conservatives that believe the military should focus on international threats.

The executive summary of the paper, “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” claims that “since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self- identify with the far-right of American politics.”

Written by Arie Perliger, Director of Terrorism Studies at the Combating Terrorism Center and an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social Sciences at West Point, the paper asserts that three distinct ideologies exist in the “American violent far right.” Those are “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement,” the last of which “includes mainly Christian Identity groins such as the Aryan Nations.”

“Findings indicate that…it is not only feelings of deprivation that motivate those involved in far right violence, but also the sense of empowerment that emerges when the political system is perceived to be increasingly permissive to far right ideas,” it later reads.

The rise in attacks in the 21st century were significant, as “Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%.”

West Point study on ?violent far right? shows ?dramatic rise? in attacks | The Raw Story

Read the actual report, it's bs without any corroborating evidence to support it's "findings".

It is a little odd that there was no study of "Far Left Violence".....I suppose that would include Muslim Terror attacks which spiked in 2001.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of what is written in red above has occurred since the end of December.

Oh, no it hasn't. Remember the nutcase in the South who shot cops because he believed they were going to take away his guns. That was a couple of years ago.

Lately, you have all these kooks talking their shit about Obama's Executive Orders. There is no reasoning with these people. They think the United States is going to allow them to interpret the Constitution and the people aren't going to allow that.

Those kooks were here before Obama was in politics.

You misunderstand. The recent stuff, including Obama's program and the Utah Sheriff Association's stupidity and JimBowie's recent nonsense, is during the last five weeks.

You are absolutely correct in that the shit-stupid reactionaries have been getting stupider by the years since Obama's first election. You are also correct in that no reactionary radical shit stain is going to interpret the Constitution for us.

 

[beagle9]

The states with the highest murder rates are all bright red. Fail from you as usual.

they also have inner city libbs committing crimes.

More are from the GOP rednecks.

No way, now you are just shooting off your mouth instead of your gun...

 

[beagle9]

How could Obama be the cause? The far right-wing violence peaked in 2008, when Bush was President.

What is written in red above, was all before 2008 is what you are inferring or saying now ?

The three categories of far right-wing violence are fundamentalist like the Aryan Nation, notice it's not Christian fundamentalists, White Supremacist groups and anti-Federalists. Notice the word violence and ideology has nothing to do with it. There are issues I believe, like everybody else believes in issues, but I don't support someone using violence because they share the same point of view as I do. I would condemn someone using violence on any side and wonder why the right-wing doesn't do the same. If a Democrat does something wrong, I'm not going to defend them, because they are a Democrat. If it's something bad, get the asshole out of the party, I don't want him around. That's the way people ought to be. If you want to change the government, do it at the polls.

You were doing good until you slid into your "I wish the right wing would do the same" attack....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, we need the GOP to condemn the radical right when it acts stupidly.

Thank heavens for Governor Jindall. We are not the party of stupid, and those few in the party who act stupidly need to be condemned. No talk of violence or threatened violence or violent language can be tolerated from those jackals.

 

[beagle9]

Yes, we need the GOP to condemn the radical right when it acts stupidly.

Thank heavens for Governor Jindall. We are not the party of stupid, and those few in the party who act stupidly need to be condemned. No talk of violence or threatened violence or violent language can be tolerated from those jackals.

But when the left talks violence and occupies and/or trespasses, abuses each other, does illegal drugs, lives foolishly, won't work, is found to be anti-God, anti-American, and sexually assaulting each other etc. well all that is A-Ok with you huh ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We condemn the same on the left as well. beagle9, without using intimidation or violent language.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, we need the GOP to condemn the radical right when it acts stupidly.

Thank heavens for Governor Jindall. We are not the party of stupid, and those few in the party who act stupidly need to be condemned. No talk of violence or threatened violence or violent language can be tolerated from those jackals.

We already have a liberal party there is no need for another one. The GOP needs to condemn idiots like you who claim to be a Republican but shows no proof of it.

 

[beagle9]

We condemn the same on the left as well. beagle9, without using intimidation or violent language.

Have I used intimidation or violent language Jake ? No I haven't, and the GOP as a political party hasn't either, so where do you come up with this stuff? There will always be radicals in every party, but they don't represent the parties as a whole ever, but the tactic is to take what is radical found in any group, give them false power, and then use them as if they represent then the entire group.. It is a tactic and you know it, because you use it here all the time. It really all comes down to percentages, and what percentage of a party is going bonkers these days, and so far I think the dems have taken the biggest piece on their plates of the fruit cakes to date.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you talking personally now or generally, beagle9. The small minority of abusive language users have a greater impact negatively than their numbers warrant. The hate they used, I believe, was instrumental in Romney's defeat.

Reaching out constructively to minorities and women will make our reactionaries almost completely harmless to the party.

 

[beagle9]

Are you talking personally now or generally, beagle9. The small minority of abusive language users have a greater impact negatively than their numbers warrant. The hate they used, I believe, was instrumental in Romney's defeat.

Reaching out constructively to minorities and women will make our reactionaries almost completely harmless to the party.

Ok, I agree that inclusiveness is always a good thing, but I would never agree to including those or going after those whom are not on board with the most important values and ideals in which the bulk of the party keeps or has. It would be like inviting the wolves into the hen house, soon they will eventually eat the most valuable hens that produce the most valuable eggs, and that is a huge problem for those who had let them in or included them in, otherwise without them first having to give a sworn oath or having at the least the matching values shown in the acceptance of them as members when including them.

A good example to something like this, is just look what has held the blacks back over time. I think it was this so called inclusiveness they had, in which was to give towards their own skin color this blanket inclusiveness, and this was all based upon skin color over time, and not that of character in which it should always be. Ok, so why did they do this? It was because they felt they needed the "numbers" in body count and skin color over time to hold the lines, and this in order to turn the tides eventually for their brothers and sisters of color to finally be accepted into main stream American culture, so they included those even for whom have done them wrong or made them look bad over time at a huge price, but they felt it was worth it for the "numbers" to prevail even over the values instead, as this was the position they had taken back in the day. It is one in which they felt worked even at the high price they have had to pay in it's thinking of and in action of. Now is the GOP flirting with this same numbers game or plan of action in this way, and it now being based on openness to all regardless of their behaviors, beliefs, loyalties, values etc. just as the blacks had done based upon a skin color when they needed the numbers to be strong in that sense ?

What price is paid for this way of thinking or would it be better to strengthen a group based on merits and values related to the groups way of thinking, than to play these numbers games in these ways? Now if the groups ways of thinking has changed over time, and it has gotten away from what is right and began to do wrong, then it needs a purging of that group in order to become strong again, and not instead a flood of those to enter in, for whom would nail the final nail into the coffin for them all.

I will say this, that one man with the armor of God on, and who is living in the strength of that armor there of, will have the strength of a thousand men who are living without these things. So in this sense a minority can prevail always as David did against Goliath, but if a standing army has not God with them, they are weakened to the point of a single man for whom has found himself naked, and weak without God in his life, and for which is easily defeated in this type of situation.

 

[Dubya]

We condemn the same on the left as well. beagle9, without using intimidation or violent language.

Have I used intimidation or violent language Jake ? No I haven't, and the GOP as a political party hasn't either, so where do you come up with this stuff? There will always be radicals in every party, but they don't represent the parties as a whole ever, but the tactic is to take what is radical found in any group, give them false power, and then use them as if they represent then the entire group.. It is a tactic and you know it, because you use it here all the time. It really all comes down to percentages, and what percentage of a party is going bonkers these days, and so far I think the dems have taken the biggest piece on their plates of the fruit cakes to date.

You are lying to yourself there. An example is any Republican talking about secession is talking violence, because they live in a fantasy world thinking if they can secede, there won't be violence caused by that action. Besides the obvious objections, the people of Texas or the state of Texas doesn't own everything in Texas, so what makes idiots think we are going to allow them to take anything from us?

If living in America bothers you that much, do us a favor and get the fuck out of it! We aren't going to put up with your treasonous, lawless asses. Generally, you are just a bunch of childish people talking shit and you have the guts to do anything, but run your foolish mouths.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Texas is not going to secede. Even Perry, who uses the language of violence, has no intention of using violence. He does it to keep his religious base, about 37% of Texas voters, happy.

A comment of "group ways of thinking": beagle9 makes is an excellent if unaware condemnation of evangelical group thinking.

 

[beagle9]

We condemn the same on the left as well. beagle9, without using intimidation or violent language.

Have I used intimidation or violent language Jake ? No I haven't, and the GOP as a political party hasn't either, so where do you come up with this stuff? There will always be radicals in every party, but they don't represent the parties as a whole ever, but the tactic is to take what is radical found in any group, give them false power, and then use them as if they represent then the entire group.. It is a tactic and you know it, because you use it here all the time. It really all comes down to percentages, and what percentage of a party is going bonkers these days, and so far I think the dems have taken the biggest piece on their plates of the fruit cakes to date.

You are lying to yourself there. An example is any Republican talking about secession is talking violence, because they live in a fantasy world thinking if they can secede, there won't be violence caused by that action. Besides the obvious objections, the people of Texas or the state of Texas doesn't own everything in Texas, so what makes idiots think we are going to allow them to take anything from us?

If living in America bothers you that much, do us a favor and get the fuck out of it! We aren't going to put up with your treasonous, lawless asses. Generally, you are just a bunch of childish people talking shit and you have the guts to do anything, but run your foolish mouths.

I wrote up a good one for you, but hit the wrong button and it all went away, so I am not going to take my time to write it again, because you aren't worth it.

 

[Ernie S.]

The states with the highest murder rates are all bright red. Fail from you as usual.

they also have inner city libbs committing crimes.

More are from the GOP rednecks.

The states with the highest murder rates may be red, I haven't looked, but they ARE the states with the highest percentage of black population. That, I can prove.

 

[Ernie S.]

When did I say she shot anyone? Though I love how some right wing idiot spews a pile of BS that the shooter was a democrat, and you don't say a word. Now that I state the truth, you throw a pissy fit.

Your partisanship is showing,...

...and your proof he wasn't a Democrat is what? Link please. You wouldn't know truth if it had a $1,000,000 check attached.

"Nancy Lanza was a survivalist, who may have owned the weapon her son used to kill her as part of her stockpiling of supplies for the the economic collapse she thought the country was facing, according to a close family member."

Sandy Hook Killer?s Mother Was A Survivalist, Preparing For Economic Collapse | Radar Online

Right wing partisan hacks like you don't give a shit about the truth, you just make crap up and believe lies that fit your brainwashed, america-hating agenda.
Like I already mentioned, the mother was described as a "survivalist" that was stockpiling supplies and weapons. She was clearly a delusional radical right wing Beck troll that brainwashed her son.

Exactly HOW does that prove Adam Lanza was not a democrat left wing Randi Rhodes troll?

 

[saveliberty]

When did I say she shot anyone? Though I love how some right wing idiot spews a pile of BS that the shooter was a democrat, and you don't say a word. Now that I state the truth, you throw a pissy fit.

Your partisanship is showing,...

...and your proof he wasn't a Democrat is what? Link please. You wouldn't know truth if it had a $1,000,000 check attached.

"Nancy Lanza was a survivalist, who may have owned the weapon her son used to kill her as part of her stockpiling of supplies for the the economic collapse she thought the country was facing, according to a close family member."

Sandy Hook Killer?s Mother Was A Survivalist, Preparing For Economic Collapse | Radar Online

Right wing partisan hacks like you don't give a shit about the truth, you just make crap up and believe lies that fit your brainwashed, america-hating agenda.
Like I already mentioned, the mother was described as a "survivalist" that was stockpiling supplies and weapons. She was clearly a delusional radical right wing Beck troll that brainwashed her son.

Doesn't say word one about her being a right wing person asshat.

 

[saveliberty]

Seriously mods. You want to rid the political threads of trolls? Start with Black_Label.

 

[Black_Label]

...and your proof he wasn't a Democrat is what? Link please. You wouldn't know truth if it had a $1,000,000 check attached.

"Nancy Lanza was a survivalist, who may have owned the weapon her son used to kill her as part of her stockpiling of supplies for the the economic collapse she thought the country was facing, according to a close family member."

Sandy Hook Killer?s Mother Was A Survivalist, Preparing For Economic Collapse | Radar Online

Right wing partisan hacks like you don't give a shit about the truth, you just make crap up and believe lies that fit your brainwashed, america-hating agenda.
Like I already mentioned, the mother was described as a "survivalist" that was stockpiling supplies and weapons. She was clearly a delusional radical right wing Beck troll that brainwashed her son.

Doesn't say word one about her being a right wing person asshat.

Have you ever seen a "survivalist" that was loaded to the brim with weapons in fear of the economy that wasn't a far right nutcase? "Da libs" hate guns and want to take them all away, remember?